are you the new forum police? just in case you forgot , you still have not pointed out any of those assaults with machine guns yet.

Burlingham NY

Username hidden
(9765 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Completely off topic but okay, whatever...

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(2789 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Somebody may want to remind Obammy that he too is not royalty either....

Burlingham NY

Username hidden
(9765 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Hmmm. The right is very quiet. No righty, wiki-trained scholars touching this one?

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(2789 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Automatic weapons were not used in any of the shootings.

Sanford NC

Username hidden
(19580 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Surely it's not just Liberals who should be grateful for sanity. I'd think anyone who appreciates civilization, even those who don't admit it, would quickly grow tired of mob rule and guns "uber alles".

Hendersonville NC

Username hidden
(2984 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Have the gun worshipers found some way to misinterpret even this sane description of the 2nd Amendment?

Hendersonville NC

Username hidden
(2984 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens said last fall, as quoted by The New York Times: “Even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years."

Pittsburgh PA

Username hidden
(2789 posts)

User Details are only visible to members.

One of the ironies of the gun-control debate is that Justice Antonin Scalia’s ruling in an important Supreme Court case left the door open to gun control. The conservative jurist and star of the ideological Right didn’t get soft and squishy in his 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court’s biggest ruling on guns in modern times.

Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms.

Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.